But the "intelligence" in the described simulator is in the simulator, not in the thing being simulated.

What people here are objecting to is the implied claim that the object of the simulation has intelligence, but when the object being simulated is merely reacting, and not thinking or remembering, it doesn't. That's whether what it's reacting to is a fundamental force, or a smell that attracts or repels.

When modeling something that is intelligent such as an insect or even human it is in the simulator because it's also in what is being modeled.

It is not until Confidence and/or Guess is no longer in the circuit that it is merely reacting, not thinking or remembering. When all four requirements are there it is very "aware" in a robotic sense, be it that awareness does not have to be consciousness.

It just so happens that Jerry's hypothesis (that there is something intelligent at the QM behavior of matter level that they predicted is true) led to where you must passionately predict it is has to be false = not intelligent. I think the odds are in your favor, so I'm more or less with you there. And your odds would increase where it is not that hard to get the QM based model to be all-knowing, not need to be intelligent. But if for some reason (I can't think of either) it makes a great model only when it remains intelligent then Jerry's hypothesis would have odds of being true going in their favor.

Being able to include what "intelligence" adds to a model then take that away (so it's then only like you said "merely reacting") actually does make it ideal for testing Jerry's hypothesis. If you do not think so then show me a better model to test it with and we'll go with that instead.

Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 06 2012,22:59)

Oh, and for simulations of atoms that may have more than one electron, the state of the atom would have to include the energy levels of the electrons (i.e., which shell and subshell are they in).

Henry

Energy states can be important. I expect though that the best memory usage and results are at the more elementary particle level where bots represent quarks and such, not atoms. Atoms should hold together and achieve energy states on their own. You then know all the variables and data needed, is much easier to sum that group behavior to single atom/particle behavior.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

You can here conceptualize all particles or other entity as insect like pop-art thingies that sense whats's around them (with whatever you give them to sense location of something with) that move around using simple round motor wheels/wings/thrusters which turn bright white when on full blast.

Science!

I prefer to conceptualise all particles as purple walruses in kilts, eating cupcakes while dancing to Trout Mask Replica. It fits the data just as well.

You still don't get it.

It has to do with the variables the algorithm has to work with, which are here literally those for a model for an intelligent entity with a brain. It's only expected that it ends up looking unusually lifelike in an anthropomorphic sort of way.

What happens, is by the time you add standard thrust vector arrows and easiest way to see what it is sensing around it (by drawing pie shaped arcs at its center filled with color as in compound eye) I'm sure your quantum bot will come out at least almost as cute as my creation.

So either:

- by mid-babble, you'd forgotten you were responding to a question about string theory, not insects;- or you think string theory can progress if we postulate the strings having compound eyes and a brain.

Which?

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

You can here conceptualize all particles or other entity as insect like pop-art thingies that sense whats's around them (with whatever you give them to sense location of something with) that move around using simple round motor wheels/wings/thrusters which turn bright white when on full blast.

Science!

I prefer to conceptualise all particles as purple walruses in kilts, eating cupcakes while dancing to Trout Mask Replica. It fits the data just as well.

You still don't get it.

It has to do with the variables the algorithm has to work with, which are here literally those for a model for an intelligent entity with a brain. It's only expected that it ends up looking unusually lifelike in an anthropomorphic sort of way.

What happens, is by the time you add standard thrust vector arrows and easiest way to see what it is sensing around it (by drawing pie shaped arcs at its center filled with color as in compound eye) I'm sure your quantum bot will come out at least almost as cute as my creation.

So either:

- by mid-babble, you'd forgotten you were responding to a question about string theory, not insects;- or you think string theory can progress if we postulate the strings having compound eyes and a brain.

Which?

This discussion is going so all over physics it's easy to lose track. But that indicates just how much science there is in this theory to have fun with.

And where we train string like bots (but not exactly sure how) to behave like real matter they start off as intelligent, or else they can't "learn" the behavior of anything. You're not supposed to be insulted by how bots sometimes even neural nets are "trained". That's just nuts. Of course string theory can progress if we postulate the strings having compound eyes and a brain. That does not mean they are intelligent, that's just what was trained to produce the behavior. Does not really have eyes, but has what is analogous to senses that see environmental conditions around it, that looks just like an eye when you show it at the center point it sweeps out from up to 360 degrees. Two would be good for 3D axis (at a single X,Y,Z point) just look really cross-eyed most of the time. With some of you here though, that is like expected, from your creation.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Gary, can you explain this? This is one short sentence and still it manages to be completely incoherent. Do you have trouble communicating in person? Say, you're at a restaurant and would like to order dinner. Is there a fair chance that you would starve if kind strangers didn't take pity on you and give you scraps from their plates?

Gary, can you explain this? This is one short sentence and still it manages to be completely incoherent. Do you have trouble communicating in person? Say, you're at a restaurant and would like to order dinner. Is there a fair chance that you would starve if kind strangers didn't take pity on you and give you scraps from their plates?

I have no problem at all communicating with normal people in normal day to day life. Mostly say I have a habit of going into too much detail sometimes, but that's better than not enough. It's just a problem for me to relate to such things as emotional attachments to how a hypothesis goes and other things where most don't even care, which way it goes.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Gary, can you explain this? This is one short sentence and still it manages to be completely incoherent. Do you have trouble communicating in person? Say, you're at a restaurant and would like to order dinner. Is there a fair chance that you would starve if kind strangers didn't take pity on you and give you scraps from their plates?

I have no problem at all communicating with normal people in normal day to day life. Mostly say I have a habit of going into too much detail sometimes, but that's better than not enough. It's just a problem for me to relate to such things as emotional attachments to how a hypothesis goes and other things where most don't even care, which way it goes.

I'll take that as meaning you have no explanation for the sentence I quoted? Nor do you have any concept about subject/verb agreement, comma usage, focused thought, or clauses? No one has any idea what you're saying, Gary. It's not because everyone else in the world is stupid, either. It's because you have zero communication skills. You've been told this. By everyone. It's you. You should really try and focus on shortening your sentences and explaining exactly one thought at a time.

Oh, and that one for emotional attachments to Darwinian theory should read "Best to not try to compare them."

I had a perfectly good sentence before that, then changed it around, but not the tense of a word that needed to change with it.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

You can here conceptualize all particles or other entity as insect like pop-art thingies that sense whats's around them (with whatever you give them to sense location of something with) that move around using simple round motor wheels/wings/thrusters which turn bright white when on full blast.

Science!

I prefer to conceptualise all particles as purple walruses in kilts, eating cupcakes while dancing to Trout Mask Replica. It fits the data just as well.

You still don't get it.

It has to do with the variables the algorithm has to work with, which are here literally those for a model for an intelligent entity with a brain. It's only expected that it ends up looking unusually lifelike in an anthropomorphic sort of way.

What happens, is by the time you add standard thrust vector arrows and easiest way to see what it is sensing around it (by drawing pie shaped arcs at its center filled with color as in compound eye) I'm sure your quantum bot will come out at least almost as cute as my creation.

So either:

- by mid-babble, you'd forgotten you were responding to a question about string theory, not insects;- or you think string theory can progress if we postulate the strings having compound eyes and a brain.

Which?

This discussion is going so all over physics it's easy to lose track. But that indicates just how much science there is in this theory to have fun with.

And where we train string like bots (but not exactly sure how) to behave like real matter they start off as intelligent, or else they can't "learn" the behavior of anything. You're not supposed to be insulted by how bots sometimes even neural nets are "trained". That's just nuts. Of course string theory can progress if we postulate the strings having compound eyes and a brain. That does not mean they are intelligent, that's just what was trained to produce the behavior. Does not really have eyes, but has what is analogous to senses that see environmental conditions around it, that looks just like an eye when you show it at the center point it sweeps out from up to 360 degrees. Two would be good for 3D axis (at a single X,Y,Z point) just look really cross-eyed most of the time. With some of you here though, that is like expected, from your creation.

And where we train string like bots (but not exactly sure how) to behave like real matter they start off as intelligent, or else they can't "learn" the behavior of anything. You're not supposed to be insulted by how bots sometimes even neural nets are "trained". That's just nuts.

I think it's time for me to bail from the Gary nonsense. It's beginning to shift from entertaining to disturbing.

I don't want to get into amateur diagnosis, but it seems clear that Gary's relationship with reality is, well, a little non-standard. When someone starts talking about the fundamental building block of the universe having eyes and a brain, and being trainable, I think we've left science (and even religion) behind and we're in another, much stranger place. I don't want to go there.

Gary, just assume I'm answering any subsequent posts with "Whatever".

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

I think it's time for me to bail from the Gary nonsense. It's beginning to shift from entertaining to disturbing.

I don't want to get into amateur diagnosis, but it seems clear that Gary's relationship with reality is, well, a little non-standard. When someone starts talking about the fundamental building block of the universe having eyes and a brain, and being trainable, I think we've left science (and even religion) behind and we're in another, much stranger place. I don't want to go there.

Gary, just assume I'm answering any subsequent posts with "Whatever".

hahaha gary wins

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

well, i am not sure what the hell giggles is talking about or has been talking about. the entire time. but he is sure, or so he wants us to believe

all that shit is boring though I need much more from Billy Billy about how he is the same individual as his dear sainted Aunt Mammaw and how all these PhDs up in here need to stop teaching their claptraps and substitute instead some quantum woo and all that

giggles you have a thread. are you and jose felipe the same cat?

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

If you have a problem with that then you have no idea what the potentially species altering Baldwin Effect is, or how it could here be displayed. But if you can explain it so much better then go ahead, enlighten me.

You see, GaryBillyBobDumbFuck, one of your many, many problems is that not only are you ignorant but you are incurious, too. I had to LOL that you, Supreme Programmer of the Universe (self-proclaimed) had never heard of a Monte Carlo simulation and quoted a Wiki article as if that made up for your dumbfuckery. It didn't.

And, once again, you toss out a term you have only casual acquaintance with, the Baldwin Effect, without knowing anything whatsoever about either the Effect or the esteemed Baldwin family.

You see, GaryBillyBobDumbFuck, one of the things you learn in graduate school is not only the "thing," in this case the Baldwin Effect, but the people behind the "thing," in this case the Baldwins. It must be lonely in your empty little head with all these facts and terms rattling around totally unconnected. Does it hurt?

Unfortunately, you inadvertently stumbled on something that has been researched as an emergent property of underlying physics and chemistry by none other than the fascinating Baldwin family. So, when I asked in my own way "which one" where I was referring to microscopic or macroscopic effects, obtusely, I agree, you demonstrated you usual ignorance and stupidity. It deserves correction, though.

The Baldwin family emigrated to the United States from Nottingham, England in the mid 1850's: Erasmus Edward Baldwin, RA, FRS, FCD (1838-1892) and his wife, Emma. Their son, James Mark Baldwin (1861-1934) earned a PhD in Natural History and Philosophy from Princeton and was curator of the Museum of Natural History there for many years.

James Mark was the father of Alexander Rae Baldwin (1891-1960) who settled in New York state where he was a pharmacist. Alexander plays a pivotal role in the Baldwin family history because he had twin boys: Alexander Rae Baldwin, Jr. (1927-1983) and Stephen James Baldwin (1927-2002). Alexander Junior went on to become a schoolteacher and lived in New York state. Stephen James went on to become a medical doctor and surgeon living most of his life in Boston.

Now, this is the best part!

Alexander Rae Junior had a large family, four boys and two girls, I think, but two of the boys are well-known to this day. Both Alec Baldwin (1958) and his brother, Stephen (1966) are actors and figure prominently in television, movies and the tabloids.

Lesser known are Stephen James' boys also named Alec (1959) and Stephen (1966) who were named after their cousins. Alexander Junior and his twin brother Stephen were very close right up to Alexander's untimely death from cancer in 1983.

However, the other Baldwin brothers took a different path with Alec earning a PhD in Microbiology and Stephen earning a double PhD in Evolutionary Biology and Psychology. Alec works for the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta while Stephen is with the National Institute of Health in Maryland. Both Baldwins have been instrumental in providing experimental support for their grandfather's work on what has become known as the Baldwin Effect.

At the CDC, Alec has published papers demonstrating an epigenetic emergent property resulting from mutations that lead to disease resistance in bacteria, in essence, a "culture communication" that hasn't been fully elucidated. While over at the NIH Stephen has been researching how some plant populations seem to "outrun" drought conditions faster than random mutation and natural selection would allow. Again, both Baldwins have extended their grandfather's work with Alec working on the microscopic scale and Stephen concentrating on macroscopic effects. Both scientists are doing work on what they have called "population intelligence" which is an emergent property of underlying causes. Whether "population intelligence" drives natural selection, is influenced by natural selection or is independent of it is not known at this time, although the results observed so far do not support "independent."

And that, as they say, is the rest of the story. Science is really fascinating but not as fascinating as the people who do science and the twists and turns their families take.

If you have a problem with that then you have no idea what the potentially species altering Baldwin Effect is, or how it could here be displayed. But if you can explain it so much better then go ahead, enlighten me.

You see, GaryBillyBobDumbFuck, one of your many, many problems is that not only are you ignorant but you are incurious, too. I had to LOL that you, Supreme Programmer of the Universe (self-proclaimed) had never heard of a Monte Carlo simulation and quoted a Wiki article as if that made up for your dumbfuckery. It didn't.

And, once again, you toss out a term you have only casual acquaintance with, the Baldwin Effect, without knowing anything whatsoever about either the Effect or the esteemed Baldwin family.

You see, GaryBillyBobDumbFuck, one of the things you learn in graduate school is not only the "thing," in this case the Baldwin Effect, but the people behind the "thing," in this case the Baldwins. It must be lonely in your empty little head with all these facts and terms rattling around totally unconnected. Does it hurt?

Unfortunately, you inadvertently stumbled on something that has been researched as an emergent property of underlying physics and chemistry by none other than the fascinating Baldwin family. So, when I asked in my own way "which one" where I was referring to microscopic or macroscopic effects, obtusely, I agree, you demonstrated you usual ignorance and stupidity. It deserves correction, though.

The Baldwin family emigrated to the United States from Nottingham, England in the mid 1850's: Erasmus Edward Baldwin, RA, FRS, FCD (1838-1892) and his wife, Emma. Their son, James Mark Baldwin (1861-1934) earned a PhD in Natural History and Philosophy from Princeton and was curator of the Museum of Natural History there for many years.

James Mark was the father of Alexander Rae Baldwin (1891-1960) who settled in New York state where he was a pharmacist. Alexander plays a pivotal role in the Baldwin family history because he had twin boys: Alexander Rae Baldwin, Jr. (1927-1983) and Stephen James Baldwin (1927-2002). Alexander Junior went on to become a schoolteacher and lived in New York state. Stephen James went on to become a medical doctor and surgeon living most of his life in Boston.

Now, this is the best part!

Alexander Rae Junior had a large family, four boys and two girls, I think, but two of the boys are well-known to this day. Both Alec Baldwin (1958) and his brother, Stephen (1966) are actors and figure prominently in television, movies and the tabloids.

Lesser known are Stephen James' boys also named Alec (1959) and Stephen (1966) who were named after their cousins. Alexander Junior and his twin brother Stephen were very close right up to Alexander's untimely death from cancer in 1983.

However, the other Baldwin brothers took a different path with Alec earning a PhD in Microbiology and Stephen earning a double PhD in Evolutionary Biology and Psychology. Alec works for the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta while Stephen is with the National Institute of Health in Maryland. Both Baldwins have been instrumental in providing experimental support for their grandfather's work on what has become known as the Baldwin Effect.

At the CDC, Alec has published papers demonstrating an epigenetic emergent property resulting from mutations that lead to disease resistance in bacteria, in essence, a "culture communication" that hasn't been fully elucidated. While over at the NIH Stephen has been researching how some plant populations seem to "outrun" drought conditions faster than random mutation and natural selection would allow. Again, both Baldwins have extended their grandfather's work with Alec working on the microscopic scale and Stephen concentrating on macroscopic effects. Both scientists are doing work on what they have called "population intelligence" which is an emergent property of underlying causes. Whether "population intelligence" drives natural selection, is influenced by natural selection or is independent of it is not known at this time, although the results observed so far do not support "independent."

And that, as they say, is the rest of the story. Science is really fascinating but not as fascinating as the people who do science and the twists and turns their families take.

You see, PaulHarveyDocBill, out of your many, many ineptitudes, at least that one is a curious reply. The first part makes it good thing I have a radio broadcasting school/experience way of looking at your degrading drivel as good for ratings, so protest onward, all you want.

I don’t know everything. But at least I know a good “Effect” when I see one, after finding it in a Talk Rational thread that then went on, and on, because of it. From what Google found it looks like you wrote the second to the last paragraph, not copy/past from something you found online. I have to give that an A+ for explaining why I found the Baldwin Effect so inescapable, for all who know enough about it, to have become another moth to its flame. Wikipedia has this where I highlight where the enlightenment lead the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design, and for sake of science I go where that goes, no matter what:

The Baldwin effect, also known as Baldwinian evolution or ontogenic evolution, is a theory of a possible evolutionary process that was originally put forward in 1896 in a paper, "A New Factor in Evolution," by Americanpsychologist James Mark Baldwin. The paper proposed a mechanism for specific selection for general learning ability. Selected offspring would tend to have an increased capacity for learning new skills rather than being confined to genetically coded, relatively fixed abilities. In effect, it places emphasis on the fact that the sustained behavior of a species or group can shape the evolution of that species. The "Baldwin effect" is better understood in evo-devo (evolutionary developmental biology) literature as a scenario in which a character or trait change occurring in an organism as a result of its interaction with its environment becomes gradually assimilated into its developmental genetic or epigenetic repertoire (Simpson, 1953; Newman, 2002). In the words of Daniel Dennett,

Thanks to the Baldwin effect, species can be said to pretest the efficacy of particular different designs by phenotypic (individual) exploration of the space of nearby possibilities. If a particularly winning setting is thereby discovered, this discovery will create a new selection pressure: organisms that are closer in the adaptive landscape to that discovery will have a clear advantage over those more distant. (p. 69,[1] quoting Dennett, 1991)

I found the Baldwin Effect important enough to show in the logic of Intelligent Cause/Causation Algorithm (or ICA which has four IA in it with (for sake of theory) behavior of matter IA does not have to be intelligent to programmatically qualify as behaviorally all-knowing. I’ll show that again, so that you can see exactly where, the upper left Reciprocal Causation arrow of ICA model:

All now know exactly where the Baldwin Effect is. It's here a reciprocal causation, where A influences B and B influences A, as shown in the ICA model.

This helps explain what is so mysteriously fascinating about otherwise ho-hum in forums Baldwin Effect Theory. Without this Theory of Intelligent Design many (even me) would be lost in science not knowing where it is or how to most easily programmatically experiment with it, at home too. But other than that, it is fair to say we likely don’t know much about the details you would better know about.

The next big step for what you wrote is for me to make the second from last paragraph work in a footnote with your name on it, at the bottom of the page where the theory explains the Baldwin Effect no doubt being from, and to, the molecular intelligence (epigenetics) level as indicated in the illustration. It’s not out of place for book format that I use to put a good paragraph like that (published here is good enough). It’s too historical to be in the theory itself, but off to the side of the text, the more gallantly others carry on with the science, the better. And you can include whatever you call "Baldwin boosters" like me from cognitive/behavioral systems biology sciences, where that more or less has to be accounted for in a model or it’s woefully incomplete, in at least my book anyway.

With so much more that can be said for the influence of the Baldwin Effect Theory, I know that there is even more to the story, than that. You still get an A+ for what you have so-far. But it looks like you were not ready to finish up with a “good day”, to that one, just yet.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

You keep posting that chart. Do you think it has any relationship to reality at all?

He English, at home, in forums sciency, to all intended who, view, not unrationally escaped from, comma, factories, there, to, write the sentences also for those again reading.

For humor sake, I used writing style of PaulHarveyDocBill, when they are on a roll, making fun of the theory and I, again. So that time, it was their fault, it looks so weird!

In all seriousness though, radio folk like the legendary Paul Harvey broadcasters need commas in scripts to show where you pause to take a breath, regardless of it being literaturely incorrect.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

You keep posting that chart. Do you think it has any relationship to reality at all?

He English, at home, in forums sciency, to all intended who, view, not unrationally escaped from, comma, factories, there, to, write the sentences also for those again reading.

For humor sake, I used writing style of PaulHarveyDocBill, when they are on a roll, making fun of the theory and I, again. So that time, it was their fault, it looks so weird!

In all seriousness though, radio folk like the legendary Paul Harvey broadcasters need commas in scripts to show where you pause to take a breath, regardless of it being literaturely incorrect.

Stop it! You're killing me. Literaturely? How does this shit get by your spellcheck? Don't blame others for your complete lack of writing skills. Anyone can check up thread and see that we're all parodying you not the other way around. You are too much. Literaturely... JJOAPS.

From what Google found it looks like you wrote the second to the last paragraph, not copy/past from something you found online.

Well of course I wrote it! Only dumbfucks copy and paste from Wiki and call it "information" or an "argument" or a "rebuttal." I sourced my information through my subscriptions to the NIH archives and I got some dates from Ancestry.com with some help from friends I have at that company. Ya see, Gary baby, it's contacts and resources that distinguishes a Real Scientist  like me from a miserable dog like you.

Anyway, your model sucks pond water mainly because you haven't even attempted to add any environmental feedback loops which looks simple enough to me to do. No organism evolves as an island unto itself. (The Archipelago Principle of Biogeography - look it up.)

Case in point is research done by S. Baldwin, J. Xu and Cleveland Tyler (NIH Letters, 2006, 2012) on the "Symbiotic Communication in the Distribution of Pinus taeda (Loblolly Pine) in an Extended Rhizome Field." The trees in question are known as the "Lost Pines" of central Texas because they are genetically nearly identical to loblolly pines that grow in east Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Arkansas. The "Lost Pines" near Bastrop, Texas are curious because they have had no obvious connection to the separated population for thousands and possibly hundreds of thousands of years. Baldwin and Xu, however, document a symbiotic relationship with a mushroom rhizome common to south Texas much like the Armillaria ostoyae (honey mushroom) of Oregon that can grow to be hundreds of miles long subterraneanly. These rhizomes form some of the largest organisms on the planet although a handful of individual rhizome fibers weigh only a few grams.

The rhizomes in question only inhabit loblolly pine forests although this particular rhizome has been traced from the Hill Country of Texas through the San Jacinto river basin and down to southeast Texas where it joins up with the main body. Following the devastating fires in the Bastrop region a couple of years ago, the researchers noticed a huge increase in rhizome activity not only in the fire affected area but in the eastern pine forests, too, as if the regions stress was being felt or communicated several hundred miles away.

Coincidentally, or not, the eastern pines have dropped an inordinate amount of seeds this year, as have the live oak trees with acorns - well documented - and these seeds are being carried to the fire-affected area by migrating grackles who flock in this region every year.

Why the increased rhizome activity hundreds of miles apart? Why increased seed production? Why have loblolly pines in the Bastrop forest recovered faster than other plant species? Baldwin and Xu do not propose a mechanism but their research shows a high positive correlation with a 95% confidence interval that an undocumented interspecies symbiosis is occurring not only between species but between phyla. I'll download a copy of this paper and, copyright restrictions permitting, will make it available.

But, for your model, you'll need to extend it to multiple bots with interacting parameters and feedback loops, positive and negative, that you can tinker with to simulate stress and reaction. My thoughts.

You keep posting that chart. Do you think it has any relationship to reality at all?

He English, at home, in forums sciency, to all intended who, view, not unrationally escaped from, comma, factories, there, to, write the sentences also for those again reading.

That time it was just so none have to search the thread or the theory to find where it says "Balwin Effect", along with all else that goes with it. It's just a versatile illustration. Better that than needing a dozen different ones then another with all those.

This theory requires ability to conceptualize the ICA working. I make that easier by showing where something I am explaining is, in the illustration. Others who have not seen it as many times as you would more likely not recall that being there, have no clue what I'm talking about.

In this case the ICA illustration is just for convenience sake, so you'll have no problem picturing the whole thing in your mind. It is not an outside of theory concept such as Monte Carlo (where being more expert in it does not help the model/theory) the Baldwin Effect is there for good reason (and being more expert in it does help the model/theory).

Now that the IA circuit is on the page showing eye and such, for theory with multiple dimensions like String Theory (assuming 1 bit Data and Address bus even though likely need more) I would predict the circuit needs to look something like this:

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

My first reaction was they certainly deserve to be the 2009 winner of the National Institutes of Health Director's Pioneer Award, for study the molecular intelligence GUESS mechanism that so little is known about yet is so vital to the theory.

I currently use hypermutation as a similar example of that happening. But that's another stress related mechanism the theory predicts. Knowing how most of that works, would make it relatively easy to model e.Coli molecular intelligence. Without it, I'm best to put effort into perfecting an insect brain based multicellular level Intelligent Design Lab, where the higher order Left/Right and Forward/Reverse is all that needs to be guessed/controlled. Plenty of experimental evidence even the probing of a cockroach brain central complex to see the signal(s) in the Central Control of Insect Locomotion video. Molecular intelligence of an insect is more complicated than its multicellular intelligence.

I started where it's most easy to model. But hope to in time need an even bigger challenge, that needs all these researchers have on the mechanism they are studying. So make sure they stay busy on it!

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

From what Google found it looks like you wrote the second to the last paragraph, not copy/past from something you found online.

Well of course I wrote it! Only dumbfucks copy and paste from Wiki and call it "information" or an "argument" or a "rebuttal." I sourced my information through my subscriptions to the NIH archives and I got some dates from Ancestry.com with some help from friends I have at that company. Ya see, Gary baby, it's contacts and resources that distinguishes a Real Scientist ™ like me from a miserable dog like you.

Anyway, your model sucks pond water mainly because you haven't even attempted to add any environmental feedback loops which looks simple enough to me to do. No organism evolves as an island unto itself. (The Archipelago Principle of Biogeography - look it up.)

Hey, at least the whole truth is helping to provide that, and now you just look ridiculous again!

Quote (Doc Bill @ Dec. 08 2012,16:28)

Case in point is research done by S. Baldwin, J. Xu and Cleveland Tyler (NIH Letters, 2006, 2012) on the "Symbiotic Communication in the Distribution of Pinus taeda (Loblolly Pine) in an Extended Rhizome Field." The trees in question are known as the "Lost Pines" of central Texas because they are genetically nearly identical to loblolly pines that grow in east Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Arkansas. The "Lost Pines" near Bastrop, Texas are curious because they have had no obvious connection to the separated population for thousands and possibly hundreds of thousands of years. Baldwin and Xu, however, document a symbiotic relationship with a mushroom rhizome common to south Texas much like the Armillaria ostoyae (honey mushroom) of Oregon that can grow to be hundreds of miles long subterraneanly. These rhizomes form some of the largest organisms on the planet although a handful of individual rhizome fibers weigh only a few grams.

The rhizomes in question only inhabit loblolly pine forests although this particular rhizome has been traced from the Hill Country of Texas through the San Jacinto river basin and down to southeast Texas where it joins up with the main body. Following the devastating fires in the Bastrop region a couple of years ago, the researchers noticed a huge increase in rhizome activity not only in the fire affected area but in the eastern pine forests, too, as if the regions stress was being felt or communicated several hundred miles away.

Coincidentally, or not, the eastern pines have dropped an inordinate amount of seeds this year, as have the live oak trees with acorns - well documented - and these seeds are being carried to the fire-affected area by migrating grackles who flock in this region every year.

Why the increased rhizome activity hundreds of miles apart? Why increased seed production? Why have loblolly pines in the Bastrop forest recovered faster than other plant species? Baldwin and Xu do not propose a mechanism but their research shows a high positive correlation with a 95% confidence interval that an undocumented interspecies symbiosis is occurring not only between species but between phyla. I'll download a copy of this paper and, copyright restrictions permitting, will make it available.

And to add to that I have this in the Multicellular Intelligence section of the theory:

Quote

As though they were a single giant multicellular intelligence fungi may have a form of underground communication system that wires together entire forests. But to be considered intelligent it would need to meet all four requirements of intelligence, which here has not yet been accomplished but cannot be ruled out.

The fungi network does not have to be fully intelligent to be modeled with the algorithm, but is there in case you find a way to get all four requirements identified in the real thing, which would qualify it as intelligent.

Quote (Doc Bill @ Dec. 08 2012,16:28)

But, for your model, you'll need to extend it to multiple bots with interacting parameters and feedback loops, positive and negative, that you can tinker with to simulate stress and reaction. My thoughts.

As I indicated last reply, that is coming in time, too! But for right now I'm working on the standard methodology part. Charts and such.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

From what Google found it looks like you wrote the second to the last paragraph, not copy/past from something you found online.

Well of course I wrote it! Only dumbfucks copy and paste from Wiki and call it "information" or an "argument" or a "rebuttal." I sourced my information through my subscriptions to the NIH archives and I got some dates from Ancestry.com with some help from friends I have at that company. Ya see, Gary baby, it's contacts and resources that distinguishes a Real Scientist ™ like me from a miserable dog like you.

Anyway, your model sucks pond water mainly because you haven't even attempted to add any environmental feedback loops which looks simple enough to me to do. No organism evolves as an island unto itself. (The Archipelago Principle of Biogeography - look it up.)

Hey, at least the whole truth is helping to provide that, and now you just look ridiculous again!

Quote (Doc Bill @ Dec. 08 2012,16:28)

Case in point is research done by S. Baldwin, J. Xu and Cleveland Tyler (NIH Letters, 2006, 2012) on the "Symbiotic Communication in the Distribution of Pinus taeda (Loblolly Pine) in an Extended Rhizome Field." The trees in question are known as the "Lost Pines" of central Texas because they are genetically nearly identical to loblolly pines that grow in east Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Arkansas. The "Lost Pines" near Bastrop, Texas are curious because they have had no obvious connection to the separated population for thousands and possibly hundreds of thousands of years. Baldwin and Xu, however, document a symbiotic relationship with a mushroom rhizome common to south Texas much like the Armillaria ostoyae (honey mushroom) of Oregon that can grow to be hundreds of miles long subterraneanly. These rhizomes form some of the largest organisms on the planet although a handful of individual rhizome fibers weigh only a few grams.

The rhizomes in question only inhabit loblolly pine forests although this particular rhizome has been traced from the Hill Country of Texas through the San Jacinto river basin and down to southeast Texas where it joins up with the main body. Following the devastating fires in the Bastrop region a couple of years ago, the researchers noticed a huge increase in rhizome activity not only in the fire affected area but in the eastern pine forests, too, as if the regions stress was being felt or communicated several hundred miles away.

Coincidentally, or not, the eastern pines have dropped an inordinate amount of seeds this year, as have the live oak trees with acorns - well documented - and these seeds are being carried to the fire-affected area by migrating grackles who flock in this region every year.

Why the increased rhizome activity hundreds of miles apart? Why increased seed production? Why have loblolly pines in the Bastrop forest recovered faster than other plant species? Baldwin and Xu do not propose a mechanism but their research shows a high positive correlation with a 95% confidence interval that an undocumented interspecies symbiosis is occurring not only between species but between phyla. I'll download a copy of this paper and, copyright restrictions permitting, will make it available.

And to add to that I have this in the Multicellular Intelligence section of the theory:

Quote

As though they were a single giant multicellular intelligence fungi may have a form of underground communication system that wires together entire forests. But to be considered intelligent it would need to meet all four requirements of intelligence, which here has not yet been accomplished but cannot be ruled out.

The fungi network does not have to be fully intelligent to be modeled with the algorithm, but is there in case you find a way to get all four requirements identified in the real thing, which would qualify it as intelligent.

Quote (Doc Bill @ Dec. 08 2012,16:28)

But, for your model, you'll need to extend it to multiple bots with interacting parameters and feedback loops, positive and negative, that you can tinker with to simulate stress and reaction. My thoughts.

As I indicated last reply, that is coming in time, too! But for right now I'm working on the standard methodology part. Charts and such.

Gary, some things to consider:

It still depends on the definition of intelligent or intelligence. You might notice that you used the phrase "fully intelligent", and you often refer to different degrees of intelligence. And what you consider to be intelligent/intelligence isn't necessarily what others consider to be intelligent/intelligence.

Even if (and that's a BIG if) most or all scientists were to someday agree that the words intelligent or intelligence were appropriate for describing the actions/processes of atoms, molecules, cells, etc., that wouldn't even begin to show that this universe or anything in it was/is designed-created by a supernatural designer-creator-god. Intelligence isn't necessarily designed by some allegedly intelligent designer-god anymore than the color red is designed by something red.

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

From what Google found it looks like you wrote the second to the last paragraph, not copy/past from something you found online.

Well of course I wrote it! Only dumbfucks copy and paste from Wiki and call it "information" or an "argument" or a "rebuttal." I sourced my information through my subscriptions to the NIH archives and I got some dates from Ancestry.com with some help from friends I have at that company. Ya see, Gary baby, it's contacts and resources that distinguishes a Real Scientist ™ like me from a miserable dog like you.

Anyway, your model sucks pond water mainly because you haven't even attempted to add any environmental feedback loops which looks simple enough to me to do. No organism evolves as an island unto itself. (The Archipelago Principle of Biogeography - look it up.)

Hey, at least the whole truth is helping to provide that, and now you just look ridiculous again!

Quote (Doc Bill @ Dec. 08 2012,16:28)

Case in point is research done by S. Baldwin, J. Xu and Cleveland Tyler (NIH Letters, 2006, 2012) on the "Symbiotic Communication in the Distribution of Pinus taeda (Loblolly Pine) in an Extended Rhizome Field." The trees in question are known as the "Lost Pines" of central Texas because they are genetically nearly identical to loblolly pines that grow in east Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Arkansas. The "Lost Pines" near Bastrop, Texas are curious because they have had no obvious connection to the separated population for thousands and possibly hundreds of thousands of years. Baldwin and Xu, however, document a symbiotic relationship with a mushroom rhizome common to south Texas much like the Armillaria ostoyae (honey mushroom) of Oregon that can grow to be hundreds of miles long subterraneanly. These rhizomes form some of the largest organisms on the planet although a handful of individual rhizome fibers weigh only a few grams.

The rhizomes in question only inhabit loblolly pine forests although this particular rhizome has been traced from the Hill Country of Texas through the San Jacinto river basin and down to southeast Texas where it joins up with the main body. Following the devastating fires in the Bastrop region a couple of years ago, the researchers noticed a huge increase in rhizome activity not only in the fire affected area but in the eastern pine forests, too, as if the regions stress was being felt or communicated several hundred miles away.

Coincidentally, or not, the eastern pines have dropped an inordinate amount of seeds this year, as have the live oak trees with acorns - well documented - and these seeds are being carried to the fire-affected area by migrating grackles who flock in this region every year.

Why the increased rhizome activity hundreds of miles apart? Why increased seed production? Why have loblolly pines in the Bastrop forest recovered faster than other plant species? Baldwin and Xu do not propose a mechanism but their research shows a high positive correlation with a 95% confidence interval that an undocumented interspecies symbiosis is occurring not only between species but between phyla. I'll download a copy of this paper and, copyright restrictions permitting, will make it available.

And to add to that I have this in the Multicellular Intelligence section of the theory:

Quote

As though they were a single giant multicellular intelligence fungi may have a form of underground communication system that wires together entire forests. But to be considered intelligent it would need to meet all four requirements of intelligence, which here has not yet been accomplished but cannot be ruled out.

The fungi network does not have to be fully intelligent to be modeled with the algorithm, but is there in case you find a way to get all four requirements identified in the real thing, which would qualify it as intelligent.

Quote (Doc Bill @ Dec. 08 2012,16:28)

But, for your model, you'll need to extend it to multiple bots with interacting parameters and feedback loops, positive and negative, that you can tinker with to simulate stress and reaction. My thoughts.

As I indicated last reply, that is coming in time, too! But for right now I'm working on the standard methodology part. Charts and such.

Gary, some things to consider:

It still depends on the definition of intelligent or intelligence. You might notice that you used the phrase "fully intelligent", and you often refer to different degrees of intelligence. And what you consider to be intelligent/intelligence isn't necessarily what others consider to be intelligent/intelligence.

Even if (and that's a BIG if) most or all scientists were to someday agree that the words intelligent or intelligence were appropriate for describing the actions/processes of atoms, molecules, cells, etc., that wouldn't even begin to show that this universe or anything in it was/is designed-created by a supernatural designer-creator-god. Intelligence isn't necessarily designed by some allegedly intelligent designer-god anymore than the color red is designed by something red.

I will go further than that by saying: Science does not care who has the best sounding “definition”, what most matters to science is which is the most useful theoretical “model” to use for investigating and experimenting with “intelligence” and "Intelligent Cause". For that very reason the Intelligent Design Lab code is now getting a good going over. It was complete enough for Planet Source Code to experiment with. But testing the model like some here want to will require superseding the last with a new version which also has what some in the forum noticed missing, by not having much for a line chart.

Memory optimization is now much better. Still 25% is unused due to using only 3 of 4 possible SubSystems. The forth SubSystem is already in part coded in. That will give it equal amount (to eye facets) of various taste/touch sensors. I expect the new sense(s) to make it like a whole new critter. The current two lobe design might even end up looking like a zombie in comparison. I’m hoping so, anyway. Having to get a version that visibly obsoletes the last one (real good) at Planet Source Code would be welcomed.

Adding a more detailed line chart here gets more complicated than at first seems. But between rushing out well thought out replies and other things, I’m working on it! Already have the LaTeX code for nice .pdf charts. With the circuit diagram all messed up from the rest working differently after optimization of the core algorithm, it’s a major restructuring. Thankfully the project is becoming easier, not harder. The Lab now saves a file for variables needed to track how it formed new memories. To take care of your needs I will add a system where line charts are drawn from files saved together in a folder that names the chart by folder-name such as “One Lobe and Two Lobe - Comparison 1A” and each line is named by its filename such as “One Lobe run 1”. Also seems to need a (for lack of what else to call it) Monte Carlo feature that seeds the random generator at the start of each lifetime, resulting in a probability distribution of various outcomes for an introduced behavior, as opposed to what one of almost infinite number of individuals would do in response. In Monte Carlo speak: The approximation is generally poor if only a few grains (runs) are randomly dropped into the whole square (of possibilities). On average, the approximation improves as more grains (runs) are dropped:

If I have Monte Carlo right then this from Wikipedia is predicted to exist in the ratios where my earlier hypothesis (model already has its version of Monte Carlo in it) proves to be true. It doesn’t have to have that exact outcome ratio in the distribution to be methodically similar, but finding that exactly in the data would certainly be one way of proving to be amazingly true: [quote]The ratio of the two counts is an estimate of the ratio of the two areas, which is ?/4. Multiply the result by 4 to estimate ?.[quote]

I admit to not ever having modeled a “Monte Carlo” but that’s because of sensing something like this might be true. I had plenty else in that direction to work on, that requires a good Intelligence Design Lab, with features you demanded, and more. And not to hold that up, I’ll get back to work on it!

Meanwhile, you can work on letting me know whether I’m closer or away from the Monte Carlo method. If it works for you then I will make it so filenames that start with words “Monte Carlo”, capital letters “MC ” or word like “Dist”ribution but I am not sure what it no-doubt already has for a name. I want to make it whatever makes it easiest for you to know what it is. For me it’s something that’s in the model. I have to name something and exactly what it is does not matter. Figuring out what it needs to can be challenging because needing to be all you to know what you need there. In this case that things can be named will help all of us (and again especially me) figure out how to best explain (to you) how it works, how to use (the new useful ID methodology we are now pioneering).

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.